asunthatneversets wrote:Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.

Prove it.

"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

asunthatneversets wrote:Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.

Prove it.

"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21

Notice that the Buddha says "form" singular, if the consciousness that identifies itself to be pueraeternus dies(cessation), does the consciousness that identifies itself as Lowlydog also vanish?If the perspective is from that of pueraeternus than one could argue yes, everything vanishes(nirvana), but from the perspective of Lowlydog no, only the consciousness of pueraeternus has vanished.From the beginning of time has there been a universal cessation of consciousness, or is consciousness eternal?Understand I'm not denying Nirvana, or disagreeing with the dharma. I'm simply giving another perspective that other religions may also share.

Consciousness is momentary. "But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another." (SN 12.61). Also, there are six consciousnesses and not just one, and those six are not single units either, as there are innumerable moments of consciousness going on a day, plus the sixth consciousness is the four aggregates.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

lowlydog wrote:Notice that the Buddha says "form" singular, if the consciousness that identifies itself to be pueraeternus dies(cessation), does the consciousness that identifies itself as Lowlydog also vanish?If the perspective is from that of pueraeternus than one could argue yes, everything vanishes(nirvana), but from the perspective of Lowlydog no, only the consciousness of pueraeternus has vanished.

The answer is obvious.

lowlydog wrote:From the beginning of time has there been a universal cessation of consciousness, or is consciousness eternal?

The Buddha has never asserted a consciousness beyond the consciousness of the 5 skandhas.

lowlydog wrote:Understand I'm not denying Nirvana, or disagreeing with the dharma. I'm simply giving another perspective that other religions may also share.

Well, we disagree on this point with the other religions.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

pueraeternus wrote:"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21

Thanks for this, pueraeternus.

Question: Is the consciousness in the part I bolded reflected consciousness, i.e. consciousness *of* something? Or is it pure/unreflected/pristine consciousness/awareness? If it's NOT the latter, then isn't there "room" in this teaching for pure awareness to be: permanent, unconditioned, non dependently arisen, not subject to destruction, vanishing, etc.? In which case pure awareness would be very much like brahman.

When there is this, there is that. When there is not this, there is not that. From the arising of this, that arises. From the ceasing of this, that ceases.

Serious question here, how do you differentiate a "pure" versus "impure" consciousness in this context? By definition, isn't a consciousness always the noting of something, even if it is only noting itself over and over again?

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & formbrought to an end?"'And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around:Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & formare all brought to an end.With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words.

futerko wrote:The difference is whether this is seen to be truly existing or not. If it is truly existing then it has a beginning, as in Advaita, whereas in Buddhism it is beginingless.

The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

Perception (sense consciousness) is only one element of consciousness and is, of itself, neither pure nor impure. It is considered ethically variable and exists in all instances of consciousness (remember the mind itself is a sense organ too in Buddhism). The problem starts to manifest at the level of feeling and discrimination.

gregkavarnos wrote:Perception (sense consciousness) is only one element of consciousness and is, of itself, neither pure nor impure. It is considered ethically variable and exists in all instances of consciousness (remember the mind itself is a sense organ too in Buddhism). The problem starts to manifest at the level of feeling and discrimination.

Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.

Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

What exactly exists outside of space and time? And how could any person possibly know of it?

"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein

"When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?"-Eleanor Roosevelt

futerko wrote:The difference is whether this is seen to be truly existing or not. If it is truly existing then it has a beginning, as in Advaita, whereas in Buddhism it is beginingless.

The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.

Physicists don't even know what space is made of let alone matter/energy. No physicist has ever seen pure matter let alone pure energy. These are fictions, although useful ones, but nevertheless fictions like longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Relative to our psycho-physical organism things arise and perish on a momentary basis. Yesterday is not here. It has perished. What kind of phenomena does this is a dream or an illusion. It is not real. Our psycho-physical body is not real and what it sees and determines is also not real. All of our thoughts and ideas about Buddhism and this temporal world are illusory and unreal. Only the Tathagata abides in true and ultimate reality who cannot be discerned with the illusory psycho-physical body since he transcends it. To see/gnosis the Tathagata we have to become the Tathagata. Short of this we are prithagjana, spiritual losers.

songhill wrote:The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.

Physicists don't even know what space is made of let alone matter/energy. No physicist has ever seen pure matter let alone pure energy. These are fictions, although useful ones, but nevertheless fictions like longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Relative to our psycho-physical organism things arise and perish on a momentary basis. Yesterday is not here. It has perished. What kind of phenomena does this is a dream or an illusion. It is not real. Our psycho-physical body is not real and what it sees and determines is also not real. All of our thoughts and ideas about Buddhism and this temporal world are illusory and unreal. Only the Tathagata abides in true and ultimate reality who cannot be discerned with the illusory psycho-physical body since he transcends it. To see/gnosis the Tathagata we have to become the Tathagata. Short of this we are prithagjana, spiritual losers.

So your definition of phenomena is as "a dream or illusion", and your definition of Tathagata is that he "neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava". How is it possible to differentiate between two things when your definition of them is identical?

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

futerko wrote:So your definition of phenomena is as "a dream or illusion", and your definition of Tathagata is that he "neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava". How is it possible to differentiate between two things when your definition of them is identical?

My notion of dream or an illusion, as it applies to phenomena, is different than Tathagata who is boundless and all pervasive; never comes into existence (bhava) nor perishes (abhava),